About the 70 NGO's who endorsed the LLHR letter: These NGO's were in Geneva and had no contacts with Libya. They relied on Bouchouiguir. [2]

French journalists have interviewed Bouchouiguir in Geneva, in june 2011, where he is now the new Libyan ambassador. You will hear the answers on many questions directly from Bouchouiguir’s interview. Here is the whole interview..

2) Ali Zeidan letter.

On 2 March mr Ali Zeidan ( from LLHR

ànd from the Transitional Council ) published a statement that 6000 people were killed so far.

3000 in Tripoli, 2000 in Benghazi and 1000 in other cities.

Did Zeidan provide any proof ? No.

Did he speak the truth? No.

Now we know from two sources how many people died in Benghazi: 237 according to the BBC and 300 according to Bouchouiguir.

Another reason for the West to take action was the Libyan UN ambassador Dabbashi who already on 21 february changed sides and stated: “We are expecting a real genocide in Tripoli. The airplanes are still bringing mercenaries to the airports”.

Prof. Max Forte explains ( Myth 1) why the ambassador used these words, and why they are not the right words:

The concept of 'genocide' is well defined, and can not be used here.

Mentioning the airports was the right preparation for a No-Fly zone.

In march 2008 Ghadaffi lanced his Wealth Distribution Program. ( Mahdi) He was fed up with the corruption and wanted to give the oil revenues directly to his people. This was alarm fase 1 for the Elite of Libya, and they started to sabotage the plan. This could be the reason why the ambassadors and high placed Libyans changed sides so quickly, and why thio was not a lower class revolte, but a middle class revolte, as Jian Hafiz learned when she was in Libya.

4) Ghadaffi held a speech threatening to take revenge in Benghazi.

Obama said that Ghadaffi had threatened his people, but that is not true. Ghadaffi said that he would have no mercy for the rebels. So here it was Obama himself who lied and thus demonised Ghadaffi.

International law goes like this, if I am correct:

- A sovereign that is confronted with a peaceful demonstration is not allowed to crack down on a demonstration by killing its civilians.

- A sovereign that is confronted with an armed rebellion has the right to resist the rebels, with arms.

If a sovereign would not have this right, anarchy would result in every country, as anyone could start his own uprising.

It is said many times that Libya is full of weapons. As we have not even one video that shows a peacefull group of protesters being shot at by snipers,( like here ) we may safely believe that it did not happen.

There was an armed rebellion in Benghazi and other places, so Ghadaffi had the right to threaten the rebels with violence and even to use violence against them.( Not against the demonstrators).

Yet, Ghadaffi’s threats were taken as if they were illegal, as if they were against peacefull protesters, and as proof that a massacre would happen if he would reconquer Benghazi.

Now, is there a chance that Ghadaffi would start killing peacefull protesters?

“The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially—including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi….Khadafy’s acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields….Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre….Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The ‘no mercy’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those ‘who throw their weapons away’. Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight ‘to the bitter end’ ".

In a bitter irony, what evidence there is of massacres, committed by both sides, is now to be found in Tripoli in recent days, months after NATO imposed its “life-saving” military measures. Revenge killings are daily being reported with greater frequency, includingthe wholesale slaughter of black Libyans and African migrantsby rebel forces. Another sad irony: in Benghazi, which the insurgents have held for months now, well after Gaddafi forces were repulsed, not even that has prevented violence: revenge killings have been reported there too.

5. The fact that the Arab League asked for intervention seems to have been an important factor for the decision for interference. Recently information has surfaced that, in turn, France and Great Brittain, have put a lot of pressure on the Arab League to make them ask for intervention. I heard this at a meeting at Clingendael Institure , The Hague.

CONCLUSION: WE IDENTIFIED FIVE POSSIBLE SOURCES FOR ARGUMENTS PRO NATO-INTERVENTION. EACH OF THESE SOURCES WAS NOT RELIABLE.

The story of mrs Hafiz is not even clear consistent. But she is genuine, I believe, so I will try to make an interpretation that is as good as possible.

This is what I think happenend:

On Facebook there was a 'Day of Anger" -demonstration planned on 17 febr. by Benghazi youth.

But on 15 th of febr. the lawyer that helped families of the Benghazi prisoners that were

killed in the Abu Salim-prison revolt was arrested.

The family of the prisoners went to demonstrate because of that, on 15 th of febr.

Governement soldiers shot on these demonstrators, and some were killed.

The next day the funeral of these victims went past the Khateeba, and they were shot at, again. ( I am not sure if this)

Then the people decided to attack the Khateeba.

This fight took place from 16 to 20 february. Then, on the 20th the soldiers were driven out.

Ghadaffi's son Saadi flew to Benghazi and led the army in the Khateeba for a few days, but fled when the army lost.

As the people were really attacking the soldiers, these soldiers fired back.

The real mistakes of the Ghadaffi regime were:

- a. to arrest this lawyer.

- b. to shoot at the demonstrators on 15 febr.

I would not be surprised if these decisions, a. and b. were done by moles.

Who organised the facebook demonstration?

Why did this Human Rights organisation organise the Abu Salim demonstration just 2 days before the "Day of Anger"- demonstration ? It was more that 15 years and 5 months ago, and not the 15th anniversary as was said by Jihan Hafiz. So this was a 'produced' demonstration, just as the facebook demonstration.

Is it true that Bernard Henry Levy ( BHL) met one man of the TC in Australia, six months before the revolte?

Mahdi Nazemroaya writes:

"About six months before the conflict erupted in Libya, Mahmoud Jibiril actually met with Bernard-Henri Lévy in Australia to discuss forming the Transitional Council and deposing Colonel Qaddafi." Mahdi's source: [4] Private discussions with Mahmoud Jiribil’s co-workers inside and outside of Libya.

If that info of Mahdi can be corroborated, it would be very meaningful.

Here are the video's that are my sources:

From

Real News 1: we learn this:
( at 7 min) It started on the 15th of febr.

In the Abu Salim prison many Benghazi prisoners were killed in a prison uprising on 6 october 1996. The Benghazi family of these prisoners went on the street to demonstrate.
They had done this before.(Do I understand this correctly?)
Then (on the 15 th?) the lawyer of these prisoners and theiur families, was arrested, which made the people more angry. Then the Government soldiers started to shoot protesters.

They decided to attack the military compound, the Khateeba, a large fenced army base.

When they succeeded they found arms there.

The people that were killed on the 15th, were buried the next day. The leaders of the funeral dicided to pass by the Khateeba, just to show the soldiers that they were not afraid. And then the soldiers from the Khateeba started to shoot.

( 4 min) It began as a Human Rights protest over the Abu Salim prisoners , 15 years and several months before.

( 4.57) "We decided to start the uprising on the 17th to get Ghadaffi out." Was this a demonstration, or an uprising ? The man who speaks says that it was their goal to have an uprising, regime change. Not a change of policy, which is normally the goal of a demonstration.

( 5.24) Thousands of protesters went across the bridge. Peaceful and unarmed.

Then among them appeared men with sticks and guns. Probably mercenaries. They also shot at people.

"They were shooting at us, to kill us"

Anders Breivik killed 90 people in 1 hour. Here we are told there are thousands of demonstrating people on the streets, who are dispersed by some men with yellow hats. Most with simple sticks, some allegedly with guns. After 3 days of fighting between the governement army ( Note: every government is legally alowed to use weapons at a time of rebellion) and rebels, a total of 237 people were killed.

Only 2,5 times as many as Breivik killed in 1 hour, after 3 days of rebellion.

One thing is certain: Ghadaffi's soldiers were not using un-legitimated violence.

( 8,23 min) Mass funerals began. They went past the Khateeba on purpose and attacked it.

The soldiers responded and shot into the protesters. It went on for 3 days.

From 11 min on there is a good description of how the people conquered the Khateeba.

A suicide bomber finally opened the wall, and the people went in.

The soldiers in the Khateeba gave up or fled.

A total of 237 people died during these 5 days.

I think that 237 dead people is very low for the conquering of a military base by unarmed people.

Soldiers have the duty to defend the government, so they are allowed to shoot at the armed rebels, but not excessively. The number of 237 shows that it was not done excessively. That is my impression.

In history it must be a unicum: a town of 850.000 people that commits a coup d'état, without any weapons, and wins the battle, with no more that 237 people dead. This government must have been a government of softies!

(7.22) After the beginning of the revolte Saadi Ghadaffi arrived at the Khateeba. Did he give orders to shoot? Witness: Ghadaffi jr.

said "Give them one more day (of revolt), and then if nothing changes, fire on them."

From the fact that in the end the Khateeba was conquered, it follows that the soldiers did use their guns rightfully. Remember: one armed Breivik could kill 69 unarmed people in one hour.

In the interview Saadi says ( 11 min.): "The attackers had weapons. It was normal that the soldiers fired back." "It were the fundamentalists who attacked the regime".

--------------------------------------------------------

Some further information:

1)

Of course there were people shot by snipers, but this was a revolt against the government, so a government has the right, or evenb the duty, to fight rebels. If not, every country would quiclkly end in anarchy.

Did the snipers kill innocent people?

Probably.

Was that intentional?

Unlikely. It has no effect if you want to repress a rebellion.

2)

On 21 Febr. the LLHR wrote:

Thugs armed with hammers and swords attacked families in their homes.This would be a very strange technique for Ghadaffi's army to restore 'peace'. But these things did happen in Southern Sudan, where US and Israel have tried for many years to accuse North Sudan governement of atrocities. One witness said that it were groups sponsored by foreign powers who did raids like this and killed people. According to Moshe Sharett's diary, this was also an Israeli technique for eliciting revenge from Palestinians.

3)

The Nato planes were later used to bomb Ghadaffi's troups, and in this way support the rebels.

But a Serbian journalist shows us that Nato was bombing before any rebels were present, and even they purposely bombed civilians and ambulances: ( Video )

4)

The same Serb journalist, Milovan Drecun, visited a big gathering of all Libyan ethnic tribes. He found out that all tribes supported Ghadaffi, and did not like foreign intervention. ( Video )

Real News is an organisation that I trust. Amy Goodman's station Democracy Now is also an organbisation that I trust. So the reporter Jinan Hafiz who was in Benghazi since 24 february has things to say that I find very relevant.

Her two video's form 11 march are already mentioned above, under 1).

On april 4 she was back in the US and was interviewed by Real News's Paul Jay.

Mrs Hafiz is not always coherent, but some information is very interesting.

Why did it get to an armed struggle so quickly ? Because the rebels were fighting a government that had anti aircaft weapons. The people wanted to bring down a military coupound.

They succeede and found arms.

How many dead? ( 2.25 min)

Doctor: 250 killed between 17 to 20 febr. And 1000+ injured. Just Benghazi.

The fighters were very strategic: suicide first. Then force that went in, then people with camera’s.

The people who were killed on the 15th , and those who buried them wanted to pass by the military barack, just to show the soldiers they had no fear. Then the soldiers shot, and that caused the revolt in Benghazi.

In Libya willen ze vooral vrijheid, ook om tot God te bidden, of om tot journalisten te spreken. Comment of Jan Verheul: Hafiz tells us that the revolt in Libya was done by the middle class, and their goal was to get freedom. Freedom of speech and of religion. A city of 850.000 people that revolts just to get freedom of speech. Quite remarkable.

Saami tried to assasinate Ghadaffi, and was not killed by Ghadaffi, but put in prison.

The UK had close secret relations with Ghadaffi.

7)

A few words on the moral legitmation of Nato intervention.

The BBC commentator says: Human Rights sources think that thousands of people may have been tortured and disappeared under Ghadaffi's regime.

1. Now is the time to proof it. Exactly how many ?

2. The people who are the driving force behind Nato intervention are the ones responsable for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Even in Iraq only !

3. This Nato intervention has cause already so much more innocent deaths that there is really no moral legitimation possible.

More so, because it happened exactly so in Iraq, and because it was absolutely to be expected: a war always results in lots more of casualties.

4. Libya was just months ago complimented because of the progress on the Human Rights aspects. Also Saif al Ghadaffi, the son that most probaby would be successor, has much more democratic goals. (*)

8)

Mahdi Nazemoraya says that he had the impression that on both sides foreigners were stirring up the hatred by stimulating atrocious acts. On 24 min. Snipers on boths sides, Gangrapes, etc.

Mahdi: I think that 3000 peopel were killed in Tripoli because of teh carper bombing by Nato.

Mahdi: Tripoli was taken through a siege: no water, oil, food. That was the startegy. Tripoli lost the war through psychological means. ( Mahdi )

[1]We, the undersigned non-governmental, human rights, and humanitarian organizations, urge you to mobilize the United Nations and the international community and take immediate action to halt the mass atrocities now being perpetrated by the Libyan government against its own people. The inexcusable silence cannot continue.

As you know, in the past several days, Colonel Moammar Gadhafi’s forces are estimated to have deliberately killed hundreds of peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders across the country. In the city of Benghazi alone, one doctor reported seeing at least 200 dead bodies. Witnesses report that a mixture of special commandos, foreign mercenaries and regime loyalists have attacked demonstrators with knives, assault rifles and heavy-caliber weapons.

Snipers are shooting peaceful protesters. Artillery and helicopter gunships have been used against crowds of demonstrators. Thugs armed with hammers and swords attacked families in their homes. Hospital officials report numerous victims shot in the head and chest, and one struck on the head by an anti-aircraft missile. Tanks are reported to be on the streets and crushing innocent bystanders. Witnesses report that mercenaries are shooting indiscriminately from helicopters and from the top of roofs. Women and children were seen jumping off Giuliana Bridge in Benghazi to escape. Many of them were killed by the impact of hitting the water, while others were drowned. The Libyan regime is seeking to hide all of these crimes by shutting off contact with the outside world. Foreign journalists have been refused entry. Internet and phone lines have been cut or disrupted.

There is no question here about intent. The government media has published open threats, promising that demonstrators would meet a “violent and thunderous response.”

[2]When asked how a group of 70 non-governmental organizations in Geneva could support the LLHR’s claims on Geneva, Dr. Buchuiguir has answered that a network of close relationships was the basis.

About Me

'Mission statement'.
I am convinced that jewish individuals and groups have an enormous influence on the world. The MSM are, for almost all people, the only source of information, and these are largely controlled by jewish people.
So there is a huge under-reporting on jewish influence in the world.
I see it as my mission to try to close this gap. To quote Henry Ford: "Corral the 50 wealthiest jews and there will be no wars." `(Thomas Friedman wrote the same in Haaretz, about the war against Iraq! See yellow marked area, blog 573)
If that is true, my mission must be very beneficial to humanity.